Featured Sponsor Listings

Mac users: new Macs

Jun 20, 2003 at 8:15 PM Post #17 of 103
Most interesting, thanks for the info, mac.

I am perplexed about one thing, I thought that the G4 was a 128 bit processor. Isn't the G5 a step backward, or did I misread the press on the G4?


gerG
 
Jun 20, 2003 at 8:40 PM Post #18 of 103
Quote:

Originally posted by gerG
I am perplexed about one thing, I thought that the G4 was a 128 bit processor. Isn't the G5 a step backward, or did I misread the press on the G4?


IIRC, the G4 can address memory in 128 bit chunks. Maybe the "Altivec" vector-processing engine works on 128bit chunks too. But the main processor works on 32 bit code chunks. So the G5 is definitely a step up -- it's a 64 bit processor, capable of executing 32 bit code. (Which is exactly what it will be doing, at least until the OS is rewritten/recompiled 64 bit.)
 
Jun 20, 2003 at 10:21 PM Post #19 of 103
It all sounds good except for that marketing spin of "bluetooth ready"

Isn't any computer with a usb port "bluetooth ready"?

And while on the subject, Mac's bluetooth support is sadly lacking. Lack of the usual bluetooth profiles used by PDAs and such. They basically only support certain bluetooth phones.

Now of course, if you're friendly with the terminal and the powers of sudo then you can change this, but most people aren't and can't.

Come on Apple - up the bluetooth support!

Note I'm not thread-crapping here, it's just that every platform has its ups and downs. This is a Mac downer for me, but otherwise it's great to here we're moving on to G5.

And would someone point out to Maverick how popular the Cube still is, and point out that was one failure in many successes?
280smile.gif
 
Jun 20, 2003 at 11:43 PM Post #21 of 103
Dual 2GHZ 970's with 8GB RAM, Yea Baby. I could run Quake III Arena more than only 9 times.


Click on image for the full size 1600X1024 screenshot.
 
Jun 20, 2003 at 11:53 PM Post #22 of 103
My wife works at an Apple store and a Windows user asked why OS X was better. A coworker told them to go home and open as many programs as they could at once. Then come back tomorrow.
cool.gif

Sorry if this was off track.
 
Jun 21, 2003 at 12:46 AM Post #23 of 103
Quote:

Dual 2GHZ 970's with 8GB RAM, Yea Baby. I could run Quake III Arena more than only 9 times.


ROFL, thats a trip!

now for a stupid question:
how do you take screenshots like that with a mac? i've been trying to figure it out with our ibook for awhile, but i don't see a "printscreen" key anywhere on it like a PC has....
 
Jun 21, 2003 at 1:01 AM Post #25 of 103
Quote:

Originally posted by djgustashaw
how do you take screenshots like that with a mac?


Applications\Utilities\Grab
 
Jun 21, 2003 at 1:10 AM Post #26 of 103
For screen shots, wasn't also a "open-apple, shift,#4" combination as well? I am not too familiar with X, but I recollect something to that extend in OS9

anyway...back on topic, yes that new Mac configuration, if it is true, is going to do some serious ass kicking in the icecream aisle.

CD44hi
 
Jun 21, 2003 at 5:16 AM Post #27 of 103
Quote:

This is the type of ignorant thread crapping I specifically asked people to avoid. Take it somewhere else.


In short, this thread is a celebration of all things good and proper, that is, all things Mac. If you're going to doubt that this new Mac will be the most amazing thing since multitasking, keep your mouth shut!

I'm happy to hear that the rumors are true and I will be following the story with interest. Remember that the first models we see are probably not the fastest silicon they can produce. I wouldn't be surprised if the trapped-in-slugdom experience that has been the G4 for the past two years has made Apple consider keeping something faster up their sleeves so that there is somewhere to go in case PCs make a sudden speed jump that would otherwise go unanswered (like 800MHz RAM, for example, or PCI Express, or simply being outstripped in GHz again).

Until we see some benchmarks with real applications - and for me the most interesting will be how long it takes to turn a 25Gbyte DV stream MPEG 2 - we don't really know just how good these new Macs are. I'm open to re-switching if only they're good enough, and even if they're not it's got to be good for competition.

Another big factor for me would be a quieter machine. Current G4s are just too noisy - there have been a lot of rumors about a redesigned case so maybe they have done something about that.

(G4 is only a 128-bit processor if you're in marketing and like to lie a lot. Bluetooth? Big deal...)
 
Jun 21, 2003 at 6:55 AM Post #28 of 103
Quote:

Originally posted by plainsong
It all sounds good except for that marketing spin of "bluetooth ready"

Isn't any computer with a usb port "bluetooth ready"?


Bluetooth support is built into the OS, and the current Macs and PowerBooks also have Bluetooth antennas built into the casing, providing much better range than most of the USB adapters.


Quote:

And while on the subject, Mac's bluetooth support is sadly lacking. Lack of the usual bluetooth profiles used by PDAs and such. They basically only support certain bluetooth phones.


That's not really Apple's fault; Bluetooth isn't really mature yet. But Bluetooth is SO MUCH BETTER on the Mac than on Windows. If you've ever actually tried to use Bluetooth under Windows, you know exactly what I mean. (Just check out all the rants by Windows columnists about how "bad" Bluetooth is.) We have a T68i, and a friend has a Tungsten; both work flawlessly with OS X. Give Bluetooth some time, and it will get better on both platforms.

(BTW, Bluetooth is awesome. I love the fact that walking in range of my computer with my cel starts up iTunes, starts playing music, and syncs my contacts between my phone and my address book
biggrin.gif
When I walk away, the music stops automatically.)

Quote:

And would someone point out to Maverick how popular the Cube still is, and point out that was one failure in many successes?


The Cube was an awesome computer. It's problem was that it cost as much as a G4 tower, but didn't have any expandability. It should have been priced like an iMac without a monitor -- it would have sold like crazy. It was the perfect high-end consumer machine, not a "power user style" machine.
 
Jun 21, 2003 at 6:58 AM Post #29 of 103
Quote:

Originally posted by djgustashaw
how do you take screenshots like that with a mac? i've been trying to figure it out with our ibook for awhile, but i don't see a "printscreen" key anywhere on it like a PC has...




command+shift+3: Full screenshot

command+shift+4: allow selection of screenshot area

command+shift+4, then spacebar: capture specific screen object (window, menu, etc.)

These save screenshots to the Desktop as PDFs. If you add the control key, it will save the screenshot to the clipboard for pasting in any app.

You can also use /Applications/Utilities/Grab for more options (like timed shots).

For the best screenshot utility on any platform, check out SnapzPro: <http://www.ambrosiasw.com/>
 
Jun 21, 2003 at 7:03 AM Post #30 of 103
Quote:

Originally posted by aeberbach
In short, this thread is a celebration of all things good and proper, that is, all things Mac. If you're going to doubt that this new Mac will be the most amazing thing since multitasking, keep your mouth shut!


LOL, well, that's going a bit overboard, but I like your sense of humor
wink.gif



Quote:

Another big factor for me would be a quieter machine. Current G4s are just too noisy - there have been a lot of rumors about a redesigned case so maybe they have done something about that.


The current ones are quieter than the previous line, but still louder than I'd like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top